This small book collects key teachings on conflict resolution, interpersonal and social problem-solving, and the forging of harmonious relationships. Most of the suttas are available on-line, but to read Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary you will have to purchase the book.

I will add these suttas to our study cycle, working through the suttas chapter by chapter, inviting, in particular, comments on how these teachings can be applied to our lives. I will use the Sutta Central facility to highlight sutta sections, but sometimes will copy and paste text.

I. Right Understanding

The Buddha taught that right understanding, or "right view" is the forerunner of the path to liberation. In this first chapter Bhikkhu Bodhi has assembled a number of suttas on Right View. These texts emphasise the veiw of one's personal responsibility for one's actions, rather then the right view that leads to liberation.

Then those brahmin householders of Bamboo Gate approached the Blessed One. Having approached, some paid homage to the Blessed One and sat down to one side. Some greeted the Blessed One and, having exchanged greetings and cordial talk, sat down to one side. Some extended their joined hands in reverential salutation towards the Blessed One and sat down to one side. Some announced their name and clan to the Blessed One and sat down to one side. Some remained silent and sat down to one side. Sitting to one side, those brahmin householders of Bamboo Gate said to the Blessed One:

“Master Gotama, we have such wishes, desires, and hopes as these: ‘May we dwell in a home crowded with children! May we enjoy Kāsian sandalwood! May we wear garlands, scents, and unguents! May we receive gold and silver! With the breakup of the body, after death, may we be reborn in a good destination, in a heavenly world!’ As we have such wishes, desires, and hopes, let Master Gotama teach us the Dhamma in such a way that we might dwell in a home crowded with children … and with the breakup of the body, after death, we might be reborn in a good destination, in a heavenly world.”

“I will teach you, householders, a Dhamma exposition applicable to oneself Listen to that and attend closely, I will speak.”

“Yes, sir,” those brahmin householders of Bamboo Gate replied. The Blessed One said this:

“What, householders, is the Dhamma exposition applicable to oneself? Here, householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness and am averse to suffering. Since I am one who wishes to live … and am averse to suffering, if someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to take the life of another—of one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die, who desires happiness and is averse to suffering—that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?’ Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from the destruction of life, exhorts others to abstain from the destruction of life, and speaks in praise of abstinence from the destruction of life. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.

Another common expression of right view is in terms of the Noble Truths:

“And what, bhikkhus, is right view? Knowledge of suffering, knowledge of the origin of suffering, knowledge of the cessation of suffering, knowledge of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: this is called right view.

mikenz66 wrote:...However, the suttas that Bhikku Bodhi has chosen here are not the ones focussed on full liberation...

Which makes sense given the title/subject of the collection, right?
(Also reminiscent of the first parts of his In the Buddha's Words.)

"...the practice is essentially a practice, and not a theory to be idly discussed...right view leaves unanswered many questions about the cosmos and the self, and directs your attention to what needs to be done to escape from the ravages of suffering." Thanissaro Bhikkhu, On The Path.

“What, householders, is the Dhamma exposition applicable to oneself? Here, householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness and am averse to suffering. Since I am one who wishes to live … and am averse to suffering, if someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to take the life of another—of one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die, who desires happiness and is averse to suffering—that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?’ Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from the destruction of life, exhorts others to abstain from the destruction of life, and speaks in praise of abstinence from the destruction of life. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.[/list]

The Golden Rule or law of reciprocity, foundational to nearly all premodern / ancient cultures.

pink_trike wrote:
The Golden Rule or law of reciprocity, foundational to nearly all premodern / ancient cultures.

It is indeed. What I find interesting is the fact that the noble disciple merely has to reflect upon it in order to follow it:

Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from the destruction of life, exhorts others to abstain from the destruction of life, and speaks in praise of abstinence from the destruction of life. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.

Those who are not noble disciples often know of this Golden Rule, and can even reflect on it, but use all manner of rationalisations and disavowals in order to flout it. Presumably the sotapanna, in abandoning self-view, treats the question

How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?

as purely rhetorical. S/he can't inflict that on another, or can see no reason to.

However, killing does not feature in the six actions which cannot be committed by a sotapanna - excepting matricide, patricide, or the killing of an arahant.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Am I defining "noble disciple" too narrowly? Or perhaps I am misinformed about the six actions, and the sutta is merely about the disciple's intention to abstain?

I think so. In the commentarial understanding ariyasāvaka in some contexts means "disciple who is an ariyan", while in others in means "disciple of the ariyans". In the latter sense the term includes virtuous worldlings (kalyāna putthujjana).

Sam Vara wrote:However, killing does not feature in the six actions which cannot be committed by a sotapanna - excepting matricide, patricide, or the killing of an arahant.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Am I defining "noble disciple" too narrowly? Or perhaps I am misinformed about the six actions, and the sutta is merely about the disciple's intention to abstain?

A Sotapanna cannot break the 1st precept per the suttas mentioned here.
For the definition of noble disciple, see the 7-fold and the 8-fold classifications here.
Also from Ven. Bodhi's note in "Numerical Discourses":

The Nikayas often set up a contrast between the "uninstructed worldling" (assutava puthujjana), the common person of the world who lacks training in the Buddha's teaching, and the instructed noble disciple (sutava ariya savaka), who has learned the teaching and undertaken the training. More broadly, a puthujjana is anyone who has not yet reached the path of stream-entry (sotapatti). An ariyasavaka is not necessarily a "noble one" in the technical sense, but any disciple, monastic or layperson, who has learned the teaching and earnestly takes up the practice.

Texts I.1-I.4 present right view in terms of the kammic results in Buddhist cosmology.

I.1. Right View Comes First MN 117 presents "mundane" right view ("subject to the influxes") as a rejection of nihilism, a recognition that actions do have consequennces.

I.2. Understanding the Unwholesome and the Wholesome MN 9 explains wholesome and the unwholesome behaviour, and presents greed, hatred, and delusion as the root cause of unwholesome behaviour.

I.3. A Miscellany on Kamma AN 6.63 explains that kamma involves volition, and is dependent on contact. Contact is defined in the following pericope:

“In dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with feeling as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.
... [similarly for the other sense bases]https://suttacentral.net/en/sn12.45

The diversity of kamma reflects the Buddhist cosmology of where kamma is experienced: in hell, animal, afflicted spirits, human, and deva realms.

I.4. Beings Fare According to Their Kamma AN 8.11 states that his knowledge of passing away and rebirth according to kamma was the second knowledge that he attained on the night of his awakening.

It seems that, for those of us who are unawakened, these suttas present the results of wholesome and unwholesome kamma as something that will have to be taken on faith.

I think so. In the commentarial understanding ariyasāvaka in some contexts means "disciple who is an ariyan", while in others in means "disciple of the ariyans". In the latter sense the term includes virtuous worldlings (kalyāna putthujjana).

I wonder which commentaries do this and why, do you know Bhante?
I think it is to be able to claim some sort of Sutta foothold for the view that Unbroken sila of a Sotapanna means he cant break 5 precept. As i can see the need to choose correct definition doesn' t arise without assumption that he cant break five lay people precepts.

I think so. In the commentarial understanding ariyasāvaka in some contexts means "disciple who is an ariyan", while in others in means "disciple of the ariyans". In the latter sense the term includes virtuous worldlings (kalyāna putthujjana).

I wonder which commentaries do this and why, do you know Bhante?

I think they are just making explicit a distinction that in the suttas is only implicit. Take for example the Sarada Sutta:

“Bhikkhus, just as, in the autumn, when the sky is clear and cloudless, the sun, ascending in the sky, dispels all darkness from space as it shines and beams and radiates, so too, when the dust-free, stainless Dhamma-eye arises in the ariyasāvaka, then, together with the arising of vision, the ariyasāvaka abandons three fetters: personal-existence view, doubt, and wrong grasp of behavior and observances.
(AN. i. 242)

Now we know that the arising of the Dhamma-eye is synonymous with arrival at stream-entry, but in this sutta the person is already being denoted 'ariyasāvaka' before the Dhamma-eye arises. Yet before the eye arises he is a worldling, not a noble. And so here one can only conclude that prior to the arising of the Dhamma-eye the person is being referred to as an 'ariyasāvaka' because he is a disciple of the noble ones, not because he is a noble one himself.

Just going by memory, I believe examples of this kind are quite common in the Aṅguttara Nikāya, but are found rarely (if at all) in the Majjhima and Saṃyutta Nikāyas; in these two nikāyas the persons denoted 'ariyasāvaka' are in nearly every case stream-entrants or higher.